Are child molesters just super AFC's?

[squirrels]

Molesting children has nothing to do with "AFC" or "DJ".

Come on, man.

 

[Julius_Seizeher]

I command that this thread be deleted immediately, I don't want this sh!t on my computer!

 

[Da Realist]

when most of us think child molester, we are thinking of someone molesting a small innocent child , not some 16 yr old girl that is old enough to have children.

Girls are ready to have babies at 12 and 13, so does that make it alright?

And oh yeah, for Pappy, just because you stand next to a plane doesn't make you a pilot. So a kid hanging around in adult environments still isn't an adult to me. In fact, there is an ongoing case where a mentally ill 17 year old got accused of raping a little girl. The funny thing is that the woman who called the cops on him used to invite the boy over frequently while her boyfriend was in jail, had pairs of her panties turn up in the boys closet as well as extra doses of medicine both were taking, and he could even give a detailed description of what her butt looked like.

So I mean, the boy has a **** the size a Buick and is old enough, but is it still okay? I mean even if the boy wasn't mentally ill or handicapped, what would stop some woman from crying rape just so her bf doesn't find out what's really going on? At least if the guy is an adult, he has better chances of knowing what to do in the situation than a 17 year old green about what the real world will do to a person.

 

[Stagger Lee]

As I said before I think having pedophilia desire or fetishes for children is abnormal, just like several other sexual disorders are. But I still think the disorder is demonized. And this "innocent children" idea is part and parcel to the propaganda of the PC.

Although they're not something adults should be messing around with, children are not innocent little angels. I remember as a child playing "doctor",and lots of kids did it. Children are also not little saints but pretty devious themselves. While that's not relevent to sexuality, it's still false to describe children as particular innocent. If children are so innocent and fragile then how do the PC justify what they allow to go in public schools?

The real problem is the PC have defined attraction to anyone under 16 or even sometimes 18 "pedophilia". I remember when i was 13 being horny as hell and you could pinch girls on the butt at school and it was just consider what young men do. Do that today and you might be consider a "sex offender". I think the social/PC rules of today are as twisted as the pedophilia they castigate. They all appear to be anti-male to me.

 

[bigjohnson]

Girls are ready to have babies at 12 and 13, so does that make it alright?

A person insisting that murder and rape are fundamentally different and shouldn't be lumped together is not of necessity arguing that rape is OK. All I, PK and some others have said is that the two are DIFFERENT and shouldn't be treated identically.

Calling a person who violates age of consent laws with a sexually mature 16 year old a child molester is incorrect and disingenuous.

 

[Da Realist]

A person insisting that murder and rape are fundamentally different and shouldn't be lumped together is not of necessity arguing that rape is OK. All I, PK and some others have said is that the two are DIFFERENT and shouldn't be treated identically.

Calling a person who violates age of consent laws with a sexually mature 16 year old a child molester is incorrect and disingenuous.

I'm just for whatever keeps adults off of kids. If it takes lumping it all together, fine by me. The only caveat I have is if the minor has moved away from home. If they are in college or taking care of themselves, that's fine because that is pretty much an adult in my eyes. But if they are at home and under 18, that means they have need of a parent in some way, so they are not adults.

 

[bigjohnson]

I'm just for whatever keeps adults off of kids. If it takes lumping it all together, fine by me.

That way lies madness, what you're essentially espousing is a doctrine of "the ends justify the means", which is seldom if ever really true. Thinking like that has gifted us as a people with all sorts of cancerous social constructs, including the current state of sex offender law.

 

[Da Realist]

That way lies madness, what you're essentially espousing is a doctrine of "the ends justify the means", which is seldom if ever really true. Thinking like that has gifted us as a people with all sorts of cancerous social constructs, including the current state of sex offender law.

Weren't you the guy who thought it was alright for the cop to pull a gun on a group of people because they were throwing snowballs into traffic as long as he didn't hurt anybody? So, that's calling the kettle black.

For real, exposing yourself and all that garbage like teenagers sending nude picture to each other can be put under indecent exposure, but statutory rape outside 3 or 4 years and real child molestation cases need to punished severely.

 

[bigjohnson]

.... statutory rape outside 3 or 4 years and real child molestation cases need to punished severely.

Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, so I'll just ignore that part.

The second part is imply this; pay attention. As noted before, we don't call rapists murderers, and we don't charge them with murder. We do however treat both with the degree of severity they are worthy of.

Saying "A is not the same as B" is not the same as saying "A is bad and B is OK", I can't really say it any more simply for you. Here is a quote from a few posts up:

"A person insisting that murder and rape are fundamentally different and shouldn't be lumped together is not of necessity arguing that rape is OK. All I, PK and some others have said is that the two are DIFFERENT and shouldn't be treated identically.

Calling a person who violates age of consent laws with a sexually mature 16 year old a child molester is incorrect and disingenuous."

 

[Da Realist]

First, that's not poisoning the well because it wasn't discrediting a person. Also, I did go back and change anything I have said, but I did clarify my position. Second, if your logic is the only thing that tells you what's right and wrong, you've got a lot bigger problems. I've heard a story by a guy who was arrested for feeding homeless people. The DA made a very logical argument and the guy admitted he did it, but the case was thrown out because the law itself was wrong according to the judge. I don't believe that the case with this subject because anybody with a sense of decency knows it's not good getting involved with someone who can be taken advantage of.

The murderer thing is fine, but molestation and statutory rape involve sexual desire. You're going after someone who legal doesn't have any rights or can't defend themselves. That's makes the person a sexual predator. There's no difference.

Now if you want to keep arguing over why it's not as wrong or in the same category, that's cool, but I'll just give you my whole argument: right is right and wrong is wrong. If you want to debate over shades of gray, then I do have to ask why is better to debate why something is not so bad instead of just admitting what is right or wrong?

 

[penkitten]

i can't believe that this is still an argument !

basically, this is what i am saying:

a. it is wrong to rape anyone and have sex with them when they do not consent, no matter what age they are. no matter if they are male or female. that makes you a sicko and you should go to prison or a mental hospital for the rest of your entire life.

b. if you molest a young child, it is wrong.you are not to be considered some afc. you are sick in the head. which is not what the definition of an afc is.
molesting your 7 year old step child or 9 year old niece or 12 year old neighbor is wrong. you should go to prison or a mental hospital for the rest of your entire life.

c. a consenting teenager (that is over the age of whatever state they live in) is ok by law.
in my opinion, they should make it the same age in all states, however, the age of consent vary from age to another.
for example : in alabama, as long as you are over 14, and you consent, there are no statutory rape laws. in kentucky, as long as you are over 16, again the statutory rape laws are null and void. however, in another state, if one is 16 and the other kid is 18, the parents can have the 18 year old arrested for statutory rape. i believe this is unfair. i do not believe there is much difference between 16 and 18 that would require one to be a sexual offender for the rest of their life. usually it is guys that this comes down hard on and not women. this is not a child molester. this is still 2 teenage kids.
now if one were 16 and the other 35, then i can understand why the teenager's parents would be upset, because i think we can all agree that there is a huge age difference between the two.
to be quite honest, i don't even see an issue with the 16 yr old dating someone in their early 20s.
what i have an issue with, is that the parents of the teenager who admittedly states they consented to the sex, get upset and files charges on another teenager or someone who clearly has never "harmed" their child.

however, to get back onto the topic at hand: in my opinion child molesters are not afc's, they are mentally unbalanced and are not to be classified in the same group as an average frustrated chump, who has never and will never fondle, molest and rape a small child.

 

[bigjohnson]

First, that's not poisoning the well because it wasn't discrediting a person.

You should review the poisoning the well fallacy, which is just a subset of or invitation to Ad Hominem.

This "argument" has the following form:

• Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
• Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

The murderer thing is fine, but molestation and statutory rape involve sexual desire.

OK, so what? Murder and mugging both involve violence against a fellow human. They are not lumped together as the same crime, however. There is a reason why. Indeed, many 'similar' crimes have their distinct definition, for good reason mostly.

You're going after someone who legal doesn't have any rights or can't defend themselves.

What human in your estimation is not afforded rights in the USA?

That's makes the person a sexual predator. There's no difference.

It's almost completely different. In one case the wiring is essentially correct (biologically) but the person is acting in a socially unacceptable manner, in the other the wiring is wrong.

If you think a 20 year old boinking a 2 year old and a 17 year old is the same, you might want to reexamine that belief.

Now if you want to keep arguing over why it's not as wrong or in the same category, that's cool, but I'll just give you my whole argument: right is right and wrong is wrong.

So all crimes are now murder? Sheer genius. Or not.

If you want to debate over shades of gray, then I do have to ask why is better to debate why something is not so bad instead of just admitting what is right or wrong?

Strawman, won't go there.

.... now if one were 16 and the other 35, then i can understand why the teenager's parents would be upset, because i think we can all agree that there is a huge age difference between the two.

The parents might well be upset, or not, but I don't see this as criminal in and of itself. Other factors should have to be involved.

 

[Da Realist]

First, it has to be against a person to be ad hominem. The example you picked was not against a person. It was against a law, which is a thing. The closest it would be is ad hominem tu quoque in which someone says something inconsistent which I did not.

Second, wrong is when ever you do something you're not supposed to. You can catergorize anyway want, but it's still wrong. Murder and littering are both wrong. Why? Because you break the law when do any of them. The only difference is the consequences. You don't die for littering, but you still did something wrong.

Now where it breaks down for me is when someone does something sexual to break the law. That's a sex offender. On top of that, there has to be a limit in place for things to be fair. You may not feel like a 21 year old is too old for a 15 year old, but a limit has to be drawn somewhere so the law isn't subjective. The punishment can be left to the discretion of the judge and jury, but the has to be concrete so it can't be argued whether a break of the law happened or not.

Now, where you said I did straw man argument, that is actually wrong: that was an appeal to ridicule. Straw man is where you distorted my argument by saying I said everything is murder. It would have been correct if you said I believed it was all wrong.

 

[bigjohnson]

First, it has to be against a person to be ad hominem.

How right you are! Here is what you said:

Weren't you the guy who ....

Second, wrong is when ever you do something you're not supposed to. You can catergorize anyway want, but it's still wrong. Murder and littering are both wrong. Why? Because you break the law when do any of them. The only difference is the consequences. You don't die for littering, but you still did something wrong.

OK, so now you're arguing my side?

Now where it breaks down for me is when someone does something sexual to break the law. That's a sex offender.

"Something sexual" is a pretty loose and arbitrary definition. This is one core issue with the status quo actually.

On top of that, there has to be a limit in place for things to be fair.

In the interest of fairness, where should that line be, and why?

Now, where you said I did straw man argument, that is actually wrong: that was an appeal to ridicule. Straw man is where you distorted my argument by saying I said everything is murder. It would have been correct if you said I believed it was all wrong.

Explain how "it's all wrong" has anything to do with "all sex crimes are the same", in a way that doesn't lead to the logical conclusion that all violent crime is murder. You've essentially made my point here, that your "it's all wrong" argument is no argument at all.

As for the strawman, you said: "If you want to debate over shades of gray, then ...." and then presented argument. I never expressed a desire to argue shades of gray, thus, strawman.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Second, wrong is when ever you do something you're not supposed to. You can catergorize anyway want, but it's still wrong. Murder and littering are both wrong. Why? Because you break the law when do any of them. The only difference is the consequences. You don't die for littering, but you still did something wrong.

This is where I disagree. Murder would be wrong independent of the law. Just because something is legal or illegal by law doesn't make it necessarily right or wrong. Then you bring up the point of punishment the law providers for. The punishment doesn't always fit the crime.

Now where it breaks down for me is when someone does something sexual to break the law. That's a sex offender. On top of that, there has to be a limit in place for things to be fair. You may not feel like a 21 year old is too old for a 15 year old, but a limit has to be drawn somewhere so the law isn't subjective. The punishment can be left to the discretion of the judge and jury, but the has to be concrete so it can't be argued whether a break of the law happened or not.

The first problem is you assume the law is right in the first place. On top of that the laws and punishment totally are subjective. Sometimes 18 year olds get jail time and "sex offender" status for having sex with their 15 year old girlfriend. A 20 to 30-something female teacher who is in a position of authority gets a slap on the wrist.

The argument is that the law itself is based on questionable motivations and dogmatic beliefs in the first place. And enforced in a very subjective and questionable way in the second. You seem to be saying, "well it's the law, so it can't be wrong. And they can enforce it however they see fit."

Maybe others are argue and point out that, historically, physiologically, and by nature, a female was of age at 13 and it didn't matter if her partner was 18, 22, 32 or whatever.

You can believe what you want but I believe the real motivation for most of the "sex offense" laws and the harsh punishment and demoniztion, is an attack on male sexuality and women's bidding. you are not seeing the big picture that unless you march in lock step to what women approve of sexually then you are consider by law and society as the worst criminal that should be locked up the rest of your life.

All the hype about rape, domestic violence, pedophilia etc, is just a smokescreen for women to have men's balls in a vice. Women are the real abusers and users but that's socially acceptable lol.

 

[Warrior74]

wow. this is what you guys are talking about in 2010? Really? Fvcking sad thread.

 

[Da Realist]

For the first one, you sited something else as the example first, and now you you've changed it back around.

Second, how have I argued your side? I said both were wrong which is a fact.

Third, sexual isn't that ambigiuos. If you're rubbing all over somebody, it's
pretty appearent.

Fourth, I've already given a limit. In fact, it was in the example you incorrectly put up earlier. I think by then there is a big enough difference in each person's place in life to call a clear limit.

Fifth, murder is a crime. Rape is a crime. Littering is a crime. Therefore murder, rape, and littering are crimes. Littering is not rape or murder, but it's a crime. Molestation is a sex crime. Statutory rape is a sex crime. Both are sex crimes. Sex crimes are crimes. Now are you going to tell me crimes aren't wrong?

But to sum everything up, why not just leave kids alone? I mean this may not be a logical argument, but when people debate over whether it's alright to have sex with a teenager, it raises a flag to me. Maybe it's the fact I'm an uncle or I've worked around kids, but I've just come to that point in life where kids will have enough problems when they get older. There's no need for a guy who's darn near thirty to be trying to get with them.

 

[bigjohnson]

For the first one, you sited something else as the example first, and now you you've changed it back around.

Look into cited vs quoted. I said "Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, so I'll just ignore that part."; in other words I noted the fallacy but did not quote it or further address it. I ignored and moved on after noting it.

Second, how have I argued your side? I said both were wrong which is a fact.

Both are wrong and as you said, "wrong is wrong and right is right". I disagree that all things that are wrong are functionally identical.

Third, sexual isn't that ambigiuos. If you're rubbing all over somebody, it's pretty appearent.

Sometimes yes, but sometimes, no. A college student a few years back was convicted as a sex offender for drunkenly mooning a carload of coeds. Seems a little ambiguity must have existed there to me.

Fourth, I've already given a limit. In fact, it was in the example you incorrectly put up earlier. I think by then there is a big enough difference in each person's place in life to call a clear limit.

So far you said:

• a 20 year old should not be going after "kids"
• You've pointed out that some girls can get pregnant at 12 or 13
• That 17 year old retards can be taken advantage of
• "statutory rape outside 3 or 4 years" whatever that means.
• 15 is too young for a 21 year old

I don't actually see any clear line you've drawn there.

Fifth, murder is a crime. Rape is a crime. Littering is a crime. Therefore murder, rape, and littering are crimes. Littering is not rape or murder, but it's a crime. Molestation is a sex crime. Statutory rape is a sex crime. Both are sex crimes. Sex crimes are crimes. Now are you going to tell me crimes aren't wrong?

Nice circular reasoning, but I'll leave it to you and SL to sort that out. I'll just say that whether something is a crime or not doesn't always make it wrong. Not to long back premarital sex was a crime, along with a lot of other things that we accept today. Heck, it was a crime for a white person to marry a black person; I guess by your logic that act was "wrong"? Drinking beer used to be illegal, is drinking beer wrong? Women voting was illegal, is it wrong for a woman to vote?

The list is as long as the list of laws we no longer believe in. Sometimes men make bad laws. The current age of consent laws are one present day example.

But to sum everything up, why not just leave kids alone? I mean this may not be a logical argument, ....

You're right, it's not.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Women voting was illegal, is it wrong for a woman to vote?

It's absolutely wrong that women vote lol! That and women being given "equality" in employment and economics was the end of true equality.

You know I'm actually agreeing with your reasoning in this thread. Like I said earlier too, just because something is legal or illegal doesn't mean it's objectively right or wrong. Then you have the questionable enforcement of these laws.

 

[bigjohnson]

You know I'm actually agreeing with your reasoning in this thread.

Good rule of thumb: Argue for or against ideas, not people. I often find myself arguing against someone in one thread and beside them in another; nothing wrong with that.